KillaNoodles
Stand Up For It
---
Horizon_Bloom said:The name 69ron always made me think the man was advanced in age.
KillaNoodles said:I feel that this is a relevant question to ask as a new member, and it's more important to ask it of the currently active, vetted members, as it is a descriptor for the community - which I'll be potentially conversing with!
SnozzleBerry said:KillaNoodles said:By that same token, an older person who has squandered his opportunities may be well beneath a younger person who has capitalized on his own.
This is, in fact, your own moral construct, where in your mind, one who has capitalized on their opportunities is, in some sense, superior to someone who has not.
KillaNoodles said:I maintain that I do not rank myself above two people, simply because I determine one to have lived a more rich life than another. I may fall beneath both of them by my same standards, between them, or above them, depending entirely on the context. The logic of the argument discounts context and presupposes on a moral judgement that judging people ipso facto leads to feeling superior over those you judge. This is a moral highground fallacy by definition.
KillaNoodles said:I feel that this is a relevant question to ask as a new member, and it's more important to ask it of the currently active, vetted members, as it is a descriptor for the community - which I'll be potentially conversing with!
Snozz said:Please consider that you are interacting with a community and remember that communication requires both people to work to make and find meaning in the words passing between them.
KillaNoodles said:Communities are made up of individuals. I do not submit that I should have to "treat everyone as the community".
hug46 said:....... octane ratings.Horizon_Bloom said:name 69ron
Except it's not...KillaNoodles said:While I agree with your claim, however, I disagree with Pitubo's:
This is simply not true. This is worth an argument. This is a logical fallacy.Pitubo said:Anyone who judges one person above or below another, implicitly places himself above both.
pitubo said:Anyone who judges one person above or below another, implicitly places himself above both.
You admit that this is a totally unproven (and potentially unprovable) conjecture, and the best evidence is 'well, Noam Chomsky (who I think it's kind of overrated actually) believes that this is so,' but later on in this very thread, you're treating it as if it's an axiomatic truth.KillaNoodles said:As with all untestable conclusions (or rather things you'd need a supercomputer the size of Manhattan to test), it's up for debate. Our modern Linguistic overseer, however, Noam Chomsky, arguably the most learned and experimental linguist on Earth for the last 60 years, holds views consistent with Formal Language Theory. Use of the word Formal in this context implies Formal Logic.
Here is Wikipedia (sourced from a book about the man) describing "perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to [linguistics]":
"Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the "productivity" or "creativity" of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar, although it is also inspired by Cartesian and rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge"
anne halonium said:hug46 said:....... octane ratings.Horizon_Bloom said:name 69ron
now im lost.
i thought 69ron was a sex thing.
:lol:KillaNoodles said:Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated"...If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject.
KillaNoodles said:Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated". Really don't have time to argue with people who seem to be doing it for the sake of "winning". If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject. His theory is as applicable as "The Theory of Evolution" or "The Big Bang Theory".
EDIT: Read a bit more and had to stop again. "to Judge" is not undefinable. It's defined right there in Merriam Webster as provided.
I am done arguing with the two of you. Big time waster. Has to end eventually, and running in circles is useful to no one. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. Be well~
SnozzleBerry said::lol:KillaNoodles said:Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated"...If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject.
Look what I found!
Come on man, have you even read the attitude?
Why did you even start this thread? Did you want to tell us how old you are?
Aw, shucks, that's really nice to hear from someone. ThanksRedguard said:KillaNoodles said:Stopped reading at "Chomsky is overrated". Really don't have time to argue with people who seem to be doing it for the sake of "winning". If you don't study linguistics, you shouldn't have an opinion on Chomsky's contribution to the subject. His theory is as applicable as "The Theory of Evolution" or "The Big Bang Theory".
EDIT: Read a bit more and had to stop again. "to Judge" is not undefinable. It's defined right there in Merriam Webster as provided.
I am done arguing with the two of you. Big time waster. Has to end eventually, and running in circles is useful to no one. Chalk it up to irreconcilable differences. Be well~
Snoz and Nathaniel are some of the sharpest minds we have on this site. Rather then looking at this argument as pointless self gratification one should see it as an opportunity to use their minds as grindstones!